Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On paying for software

seths.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 279 posts

Re: On paying for software

#211

Post by andrei_says_ »

kazinator wrote: post #162
afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

This is actually completely backwards in an ironic way. I have found in the past that when I made a program closed source, for sale, all further incentive to do anything to the program became connected to its revenue. Like, "it hasn't generated any meaningful revenue, so I cannot justify spending another N hours on it unless those hours lead to sales." Most software that you can buy has little or no revenue, which me…

Alfie Kohn’s Punished by Rewards provided hundreds of sources, tested and re-tested proof, and description of experiments proving over and over again that for humans, extrinsic rewards kill intrinsic motivation.

If you want your child who loves drawing to stop loving it, reward them. If you want them to stop learning, tie a reward to their learning.

It’s very simple, really.

Being able to receive sustainable income for doing what you love doing, is a different formula though. Subtly, but different.

Re: On paying for software

#212

Post by vertexFarm »

jcrben wrote: post #136
cup-of-tea wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the... You could donate to the FSF, OSI, or directly to the developers of most projects. Did you even bother looking?

If you donate, there's no guarantee that everyone else is donating. So you end up supporting the free riders ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem ). Which is a disincentive to donate.

That problem seems to me like it isn't telling a whole story. There have always been free riders of many kinds in society. But society isn't built around a single variable. People who get a free ride in some way often are supporting other free riders in other enterprises.

Basically if you are strict about trying to eliminate all free riders, you're going to break society in a vain effort to maximize fairness in lieu of effectiveness. Society works because everyone assumes that even if some things are unfair, most will manage and the ups and downs will average out over time.

In the example given on the wiki page, people who swoop in and take the last minutes left on a parking meter that someone else paid for but didn't stay long enough to use are supposedly able to break the system. But I think that trying to lock the system down tight and completely prevent that behavior could feasibly be more damaging to the health of the system than simply tolerating it as an occasional but mostly harmless exploit.

There's a few studies which show that some piracy and other free usage might actually help an industry's profits. Key word is "some"--there is obviously a threshold past which would become very damaging. But nonetheless, if one can set aside their outrage over unfairness (which is very understandable for somebody who has poured their life and soul into working on an IP or paid a lot to license it legitimately) then one can probably stand to benefit even from the thieves and freeloaders if they manage it correctly. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/13/does-onlin...

Re: On paying for software

#213

Post by boomboomsubban »

ropeadopepope wrote: post #149
sheetjs wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the developers feel no sense of obligation to the end users or the people who donate to them. An open source project creates no obligation on the part of the developers. Open source licenses explicitly indemnify the authors. Receiving something for free and expecting something more is the essence of the entitled behavior that frustrate and burn out many open source developers. A donation is a voluntary gift. Like a…

> An open source project creates no obligation on the part of the developers. I meant a subconscious obligation, not a legal one. When somebody gives you a gift, it puts pressure on you (subconscious and social) to reciprocate. You see it all the time with youtube streamers, who frequently cater their content to their subscribers wishes to keep them happy. And to clarify, the streamers don't do this because their use…

You're asking the developers to do unpaid tech support for you, while insulting their work. You seem hostile to them, it's no surprise they aren't nice to you.

Most moderate sized projects have at least decent documentations, some channel for support, and there are a range of third party options to consult. The developer generally should not be who you contact.

Re: On paying for software

#214

Post by willtim »

afarrell wrote: post #49

One of the reasons that I switched from Linx to OSX was so that I could pay for more of my software. Why? Because then I more of the software I used could be maintained by someone who had the time to dig into bugs and UI problems and to fix them. But in Linux, couldn't I just edit the source myself? Realistically, no. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to source-dive in a totally new project in a language I never…

This only makes sense for software that you use frequently and don't mind repurchasing everytime Apple breaks them with OSX upgrades.

Re: On paying for software

#215

Post by [deleted] »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #213
ropeadopepope wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An open source project creates no obligation on the part of the developers. I meant a subconscious obligation, not a legal one. When somebody gives you a gift, it puts pressure on you (subconscious and social) to reciprocate. You see it all the time with youtube streamers, who frequently cater their content to their subscribers wishes to keep them happy. And to clarify, the streamers don't do this because their use…

You're asking the developers to do unpaid tech support for you, while insulting their work. You seem hostile to them, it's no surprise they aren't nice to you. Most moderate sized projects have at least decent documentations, some channel for support, and there are a range of third party options to consult. The developer generally should not be who you contact.

[deleted]

Re: On paying for software

#216

Post by terragon »

user5994461 wrote: post #200
jancsika wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is waaaay more efficient for these to be fixed by an engineer working not in their spare time, but as their full-time job. You miss the possibility of simply offering to pay a developer with the relevant expertise to fix one of these bugs for you. I can tell you from experience that there are FLOSS developers out there with sufficient expertise and professionalism to do this.

Expect 500 euros per day for a cheap developer in Eastern Europe. Maybe similar for Indian outsourcing or Latin American. Expect over a 1000 dollars per day for a qualified developer in a first world location. Point being. No individual can pay that much and the develop should rather get a day job unless the software has high earning potential.

Which developer in a first world country has 30k a month in salary? $1000 a day is beyond ridiculous!

Re: On paying for software

#217

Post by theshadowknows »

BTeam wrote: post #156
theshadowknows wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand when people complain about software that isn’t free. You want it free? Go make it yourself and give it away...oh, you can’t make it yourself? Maybe that’s why it’s not free.

Until someone actually do it, and better. Good luck monetize your proprietary alternative then!

iTunes

Re: On paying for software

#218

Post by jcrben »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #166
afarrell wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm running an enterprise, perhaps then I can budget enough time and money to communicate about and pay for that and deal with the uncertainty inherent in software schedules. In my personal life...that sounds like a stressor that I'd be willing to pay money to avoid.

Sure but this sounds like an opportunity for something like “Uber for FLOSS support.” Or perhaps it would be more like OkCupid. But you could pay money and your FLOSS problems get researched and solved for you by a developer who is experienced in this area. In practice I can see this as a forum where people make minimal effort posts and skilled people give them quality support. Just as I was forming the previous sent…

This has existed for a while: https://www.bountysource.com/

It hasn't been a tremendous success story so far - but these things take time.

Re: On paying for software

#219

Post by killjoywashere »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #204
Rjevski wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that even if he managed to find a good developer to pay to improve some FLOSS software, it would come out very expensive in the end, first because the UI frameworks & libraries you get in the Linux world are nowhere near what you get on macOS, so the developer will require more time, and also because you won’t be selling that software later on to make any kind of money back since it’s FLOSS, and even whe…

Yes but keep in mind people who work on FLOSS are interested in it for more than money, so the person being paid may be willing to work for a little less (or invest more time) knowing that the work that they do is helping FLOSS. So both people can share the cost burden here. We are talking about two people passionate about FLOSS that one is using it despite the problems (and willing to pay) and one has taken it upon…

I could be wrong here, but as I recall, there's a psychological effect where an offer of money can reduce the value a developer assigns to their own at-will effort because it shifts the paradigm from noble to economic ends.

Re: On paying for software

#220

Post by js8 »

I was thinking about this recently, maybe FOSS isn't quite ideal for the developers.

As long as nobody is compensated, it is very fair system. But if somebody gets compensated for their work, then if their work depends on other people's work for free, the other people not being compensated is not fair.

For example, consider somebody producing Youtube videos using FOSS. They are compensated, yet the authors of the tools they use are not (necessarily).

FOSS basically started as a radical revolt against copyright system, which is somewhat dysfunctional, but its purpose was to make compensation fair.

But maybe a better copyright system would actually help. Say limit copyright to 5-10 years. The short term would remove the huge gap between doing copyrighted work and doing work for free, and make them more compatible with each other.

Post reply on HN